Jump to content
IGNORED

General Election/UK Politics


johnh

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, pete0 said:

The media in this country are mostly on the right, probably most of the directors in the BBC went to same schools as top people in the Tory party, the school chum act and probably go to the same masons lodge as well.

Do you think I’m being paranoid? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Palfy said:

The media in this country are mostly on the right, probably most of the directors in the BBC went to same schools as top people in the Tory party, the school chum act and probably go to the same masons lodge as well.

Do you think I’m being paranoid? 

First bit 100% correct. The BBC though is a different animal, the right will accuse them of being left wing (as John does on here) while the left will maintain the opposite.

Their editorial guidelines say...

"Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences.  It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines.  We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.  But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects.  However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints.  Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

The external activities of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC's reputation for impartiality.  Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest."

But it must be difficult for an individual reporter, who obviously has views on politics/current affairs or they wouldn't be in the job, to put their personal opinions to one side (bit like a football commentator who obviously prefers some teams over others). Personally though I think the beeb generally gets it right, for sure they have people of all political persuasions working for them but it balances out in the end imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

First bit 100% correct. The BBC though is a different animal, the right will accuse them of being left wing (as John does on here) while the left will maintain the opposite.

Their editorial guidelines say...

"Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences.  It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines.  We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.  But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects.  However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints.  Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

The external activities of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC's reputation for impartiality.  Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest."

But it must be difficult for an individual reporter, who obviously has views on politics/current affairs or they wouldn't be in the job, to put their personal opinions to one side (bit like a football commentator who obviously prefers some teams over others). Personally though I think the beeb generally gets it right, for sure they have people of all political persuasions working for them but it balances out in the end imo.

Possibly does, but my concern is I don’t buy papers because you don’t get a balanced view and they are biased in their opinions, so it concerns me that an institution like the BBC could be leaning one way or another and possibly more to the  right. 

What we mustn’t forget is the media are responsible for how most receive and digest their information and they are changing the face of our society and not for the better hence Brexit delivered mainly with lies enforced by the Sunk and the Mail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Possibly does, but my concern is I don’t buy papers because you don’t get a balanced view and they are biased in their opinions, so it concerns me that an institution like the BBC could be leaning one way or another and possibly more to the  right. 

What we mustn’t forget is the media are responsible for how most receive and digest their information and they are changing the face of our society and not for the better hence Brexit delivered mainly with lies enforced by the Sunk and the Mail. 

Well you can't have it both ways Palfy, the BBC are rabidly pro-Remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, johnh said:

Well you can't have it both ways Palfy, the BBC are rabidly pro-Remain.

Yeah but pro-Brexit people are bound to say that; pro-remainers will say the opposite. I've seen zero evidence that they're biased either way myself, they report what's happening and have no "opinion" pieces because it would break their rules and the writer would be summarily sacked if anything got published (not that it would get past the editors in the first place).

I'd love to see links of where they're rabidly anything (even non-brexit related); it's a fantasy invented by the right wing press because the BBC doesn't espouse the same views, they just report what's happening and allow people to make up their own minds. What a strange way to run a news organisation eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pete0 said:

Hold on... so the MET Police release a statement saying that he was hit with an egg and every news agency, at least reasonable one, reports it as being hit with an egg and yet the BBC are "very poor". Bearing in mind the MET had officers there and they arrested the person for assault, which it would be.

The only quote I have seen from anyone who was there is Diane Abbott who says he was punched with an egg in his hand. Given that Abbott is completely unreliable and that Corbyn was clearly fine, I would be surprised if this was anything more than a "splat", slapping him on the head with the egg in his palm. Still should never happen but to suggest its been downplayed because of who it is is just a load of old tosh.

Furthermore that article you have claims the fella that did it is far right which seems far more unsubstantiated than the BBC report which was suported by the police. Likewise I can only see that it is "thought" that it was Brexit related which to me suggests that is media guessing games. 

It sounds like a left wing poor me story and Corbyn seems like he is putting distance betweeen himself and the story so fair play to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bailey said:

Hold on... so the MET Police release a statement saying that he was hit with an egg and every news agency, at least reasonable one, reports it as being hit with an egg and yet the BBC are "very poor". Bearing in mind the MET had officers there and they arrested the person for assault, which it would be.

The only quote I have seen from anyone who was there is Diane Abbott who says he was punched with an egg in his hand. Given that Abbott is completely unreliable and that Corbyn was clearly fine, I would be surprised if this was anything more than a "splat", slapping him on the head with the egg in his palm. Still should never happen but to suggest its been downplayed because of who it is is just a load of old tosh.

Furthermore that article you have claims the fella that did it is far right which seems far more unsubstantiated than the BBC report which was suported by the police. Likewise I can only see that it is "thought" that it was Brexit related which to me suggests that is media guessing games. 

It sounds like a left wing poor me story and Corbyn seems like he is putting distance betweeen himself and the story so fair play to him.

See Mike's post. 

8 hours ago, MikeO said:

So? As the guy who committed the crime is charged with "assault by beating" it would suggest the he was punched in the head because CPS guidelines say...

"A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)."

So the press suggesting an egg was thrown at him (without reference to distance) is misrepresenting what seems to have happened. Even the Met put out a statement that, "On Sunday, March 3 at around 3:52pm an egg was thrown at a Member of Parliament."

I have no idea what actually occurred but on the face of it someone's not telling the truth; the fact that he wasn't hurt (although punching a 69 man in the head is quite likely going to cause a fair bit of pain) is irrelevant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MikeO said:

So? As the guy who committed the crime is charged with "assault by beating" it would suggest the he was punched in the head because CPS guidelines say...

"A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)."

So the press suggesting an egg was thrown at him (without reference to distance) is misrepresenting what seems to have happened. Even the Met put out a statement that, "On Sunday, March 3 at around 3:52pm an egg was thrown at a Member of Parliament."

I have no idea what actually occurred but on the face of it someone's not telling the truth; the fact that he wasn't hurt (although punching a 69 man in the head is quite likely going to cause a fair bit of pain) is irrelevant.

"battery is classified as the application of unlawful force"

My main issue was the assumption that the BBC were playing it down. It was a non event and the fact Jez probably took it in his stride and played it down himself fed into that narrative.

If it was Mo Salah the guy would probably be up on attempted murder charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Chach said:

"battery is classified as the application of unlawful force"

My main issue was the assumption that the BBC were playing it down. It was a non event and the fact Jez probably took it in his stride and played it down himself fed into that narrative.

If it was Mo Salah the guy would probably be up on attempted murder charges.

or willful damage to a boot with his groin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chach said:

It was a non event and the fact Jez probably took it in his stride and played it down himself fed into that narrative.

If you got punched (or slapped or even just "egged") in the street by a stranger would you consider it a "non event"? I sure as hell wouldn't. The fact that he played it down and left the matter to the police is to his credit.

I see your point on the reporting of it though, shame there was no footage of the incident so people could reach their own conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Every MP who has voted in favour of austerity should be ashamed of themselves and held accountable. We've helped topple countries under the guise that the dictatorship is doing harm to their citizens. What about ours? Starting with May everyone of them should be hanged. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-left-suicide-note-sarcastically-14288513?fbclid=IwAR0WRqg2YNvWjTVd09QVkT_n3HE0i1pqoUlMzLYOfnHGJxr5B2V9L864ecw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Every MP who has voted in favour of austerity should be ashamed of themselves and held accountable. We've helped topple countries under the guise that the dictatorship is doing harm to their citizens. What about ours? Starting with May everyone of them should be hanged.

I don't know about being hanged but they should be held to account. My wife's mobility element of PIP (DLA replacement) was stopped last year after being in place for more than fifteen years and there's certainly been no improvement in her mobility, just deterioration. The "living" component was dropped from middle to lower rate at the same time; upshot is we're around £250 a month worse off; took four months after assessment for decision to be given when we were told it'd be thirty days. Did mandatory reconsideration form with the CAB but the woman there said 95% certain it'd be refused and we'd have to go to tribunal, and sure enough she was right. Wait for a tribunal currently (where most decisions are overturned by independent panel)? About a year. We're "lucky" that we don't have to rely on benefits to live because my mum was good enough to die and leave us a decent wedge a couple of years back, most people don't have that luxury, not at all surprised people are killing themselves; for example someone in my wife's position wouldn't be able to navigate the appeals process (probably not even the application process) but because she has me we can take it as far as it needs to go. The bastards are knowingly refusing people money they've lived on for decades and are entitled to in the hope they'll accept the verdict and go die somewhere.

OK, maybe they should be hanged on reflection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MikeO said:

I don't know about being hanged but they should be held to account. My wife's mobility element of PIP (DLA replacement) was stopped last year after being in place for more than fifteen years and there's certainly been no improvement in her mobility, just deterioration. The "living" component was dropped from middle to lower rate at the same time; upshot is we're around £250 a month worse off; took four months after assessment for decision to be given when we were told it'd be thirty days. Did mandatory reconsideration form with the CAB but the woman there said 95% certain it'd be refused and we'd have to go to tribunal, and sure enough she was right. Wait for a tribunal currently (where most decisions are overturned by independent panel)? About a year. We're "lucky" that we don't have to rely on benefits to live because my mum was good enough to die and leave us a decent wedge a couple of years back, most people don't have that luxury, not at all surprised people are killing themselves; for example someone in my wife's position wouldn't be able to navigate the appeals process (probably not even the application process) but because she has me we can take it as far as it needs to go. The bastards are knowingly refusing people money they've lived on for decades and are entitled to in the hope they'll accept the verdict and go die somewhere.

OK, maybe they should be hanged on reflection.

Glad you've got the resources in the meantime, like you say the bastards know what they're doing playing the waiting game hoping others will die before they ever get what they're entitled, what they need to help them live. Worst thing is you and many are having to waste precious time being stressed when you should be enjoying retirement. Good luck with the tribunal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pete0 said:

Glad you've got the resources in the meantime, like you say the bastards know what they're doing playing the waiting game hoping others will die before they ever get what they're entitled, what they need to help them live. Worst thing is you and many are having to waste precious time being stressed when you should be enjoying retirement. Good luck with the tribunal. 

Woman at the CAB (who will be there) is 99.9% certain it'll be a breeze and she's played the game many times, probably won't happen until next year but it'll be backdated. Fucking scandalous though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Woman at the CAB (who will be there) is 99.9% certain it'll be a breeze and she's played the game many times, probably won't happen until next year but it'll be backdated. Fucking scandalous though.

It's shocking the government has been allowed to get away with it. Surely at some point the judges should step in and enforce a change in policy/legislation as its a massive waste of their time, plus from an ethics point of view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Woman at the CAB (who will be there) is 99.9% certain it'll be a breeze and she's played the game many times, probably won't happen until next year but it'll be backdated. Fucking scandalous though.

That from the party who spent 4 billion on the chance we may No deal. 

Let’s not call it austerity it makes it sound justified, let’s call it what it really is robbing from the people who believed the state would do its duty to help the most vulnerable in the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Palfy said:

That from the party who spent 4 billion on the chance we may No deal. 

Let’s not call it austerity it makes it sound justified, let’s call it what it really is robbing from the people who believed the state would do its duty to help the most vulnerable in the country. 

Let's call it what it really is; murder and a culling of the 'weak'. The Conservatives are no better than the nazi party, they're just more clever with their efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/shaun-bailey-tory-london-mayor-14440990?fbclid=IwAR00kAfdiu4-Sdp0ctpg033kF6qCxpR1M_23VEfeDIOS7BHRagYn7igYLLs

What a toss pot. Tory of course. 

And in a 2005 pamphlet, written for the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank, he said immigrants to the UK had been allowed to “bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have with them".

He added: "What it does is rob Britain of its community. Without our community we slip into a crime-riddled cesspool."

At the time a spokesperson for Mr Bailey said the criticism of his comments was "ludicrous", saying it was a "bit rich" of opponents to criticise him when he himself had faced racist abuse.

They said: “As a descendant of the Windrush generation, and someone who has worked with diverse communities for over 20 years, Shaun knows full well the challenges faced by BAME communities.”

Windrush descentant yet is a tory candidate who wants immigrants to not to come here. For me this just shows how easily people are brainwashed by the papers/news with the nasty party's propaganda. Add to that he's an extra whopper for basically saying he can't be racist as he's black. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, pete0 said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/shaun-bailey-tory-london-mayor-14440990?fbclid=IwAR00kAfdiu4-Sdp0ctpg033kF6qCxpR1M_23VEfeDIOS7BHRagYn7igYLLs

What a toss pot. Tory of course. 

And in a 2005 pamphlet, written for the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank, he said immigrants to the UK had been allowed to “bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have with them".

He added: "What it does is rob Britain of its community. Without our community we slip into a crime-riddled cesspool."

At the time a spokesperson for Mr Bailey said the criticism of his comments was "ludicrous", saying it was a "bit rich" of opponents to criticise him when he himself had faced racist abuse.

They said: “As a descendant of the Windrush generation, and someone who has worked with diverse communities for over 20 years, Shaun knows full well the challenges faced by BAME communities.”

Windrush descentant yet is a tory candidate who wants immigrants to not to come here. For me this just shows how easily people are brainwashed by the papers/news with the nasty party's propaganda. Add to that he's an extra whopper for basically saying he can't be racist as he's black. 

If he thinks that racism is only owned by white Christians then he needs a reality check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Matt said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47884273

yet another Tory MP lining his own pockets. I’m sure there was another story the other day of a different Tory MP only paying a £1500 fine for fiddling expense claims...

You're right, this tory chap. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-chris-davies-tory-mp-14451310?fbclid=IwAR1Fp9We_CIaGsGuFG5YPLy7EQcL5HzW5tQuIN_oegWElRCCt46v12MRPeU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...